Ramesh takes issue with my contention that the conservative movement has not paid sufficient attention to the Federal Reserve’s efforts to subsidize federal borrowing. His rebuttal consists of citing a laundry list of politicians and publications who have touched on the topic.

But there is a big difference between people’s commenting on an issue and the issue’s being a priority for the conservative movement. I could come up with an equally impressive laundry list of Republican politicians and conservative publications that have proposed meaningful health-care reforms. The point of my article was not that no one has spoken about these issues, but that these issues have not been top of mind for conservatives, in the way that other issues are.

Philip Klein put out a telling piece on this topic yesterday. When Phil asked a CPAC spokeswoman why the 2013 conference includes zero sessions on health care, she replied, “Obamacare was obviously huge over the past couple of years, but Obamacare is done.” Done? Obamacare is just getting started.

Politics, and political movements, are about priorities. It’s not enough to have a dozen people at think tanks churning out plans and op-eds — though those things are necessary, too.

Ramesh’s real issue with my piece, it seems, is that he agrees with those who believe that monetary hawks are “eccentric and quixotic.” I’ll have to address that in another column.